So....yea, Romney's finished. (Paid 14% tax rate on $14 million dollars)

[Ain't That Something]

First of all, shame on me for continuing to indulge you, I should know better.

Secondly, from the article YOU cited:


This is why I say you're dense and just want to argue to argue.

You invented this notion that I was focused on income tax rates despite the fact that this thread is about his effective tax rate. I never once singled out income tax.

Their stances are starkly different on this issue, and that's why Romney's effective tax rate is newsworthy.



You're reading comprehension is incredibly poor. No one is suggesting that he should pay more than he has to. Nobody would be foolish enough to suggest folks should just donate extra money to the government out of the goodness of his heart. That's asinine

The president of the United States greatly influences what one has to pay....his views on what he should have to pay are what's maddening.

Nah nikka FOH! your outrage was strictly based on his income and his political affiliation. Ya nikkas love throwing reading comprehension when ya'll wrong! ol pseudo intellectual ass nikka

 

[DaChampIsHere]

First off I responded to an earlier post of yours and you ignored it.
And the bolded proves your dumbass is just arguing to be arguing.
Obama wanted the bush tax cuts to expire during the debt ceiling negotiation and he was shot down.
He wanted to get rid of the bush tax cuts to pass the JOBS BILL this year and he was blocked by congress

I ignored your post because you didn't say anything and you aren't saying anything now either.

Is "the president" the only form of government that exists (on the federal level) in your brain? He's the only one who makes decisions to you?

First of all, shame on me for continuing to indulge you, I should know better.
Secondly, from the article YOU cited:
This is why I say you're dense and just want to argue to argue.
You invented this notion that I was focused on income tax rates despite the fact that this thread is about his effective tax rate. I never once singled out income tax.
Their stances are starkly different on this issue, and that's why Romney's effective tax rate is newsworthy.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again and you're not talking about anything different than what I'm talking about. Indulge your ignorance below, since again, you clearly don't know what you're talking about and me saying such is not enough for you to recognize this.

Mitt Romney's effective tax rate is very low: Most economists think it should be.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

Nah nikka FOH! your outrage was strictly based on his income and his political affiliation. Ya nikkas love throwing reading comprehension when ya'll wrong! ol pseudo intellectual ass nikka

Care to back that up, or you just throwing shyt out there?

You're officially in DaChampIsHere's category...y'all just attach weak arguments to posters so you can shoot them down. Dueces.

 

[CrimsonTider]

nikka if that was me I wouldnt wanna pay more than i have to either. Yall nikkas somethin else. He made 14 donated 4 and got taxed 2. Ya want that nikka to donate half his investments every year.

You are ignorant on capital gains my friend.

Fun fact ya bum nikkas might not know. nikkas make up bout 14% of the population and cacs make up bout 40%. 38% of people on the welfare system are cacs so do the math. More cacs are on welfare than nikkas. So no I want nikkas to stop being dependent on welfare and cacs to stop eating off my taxes!

you are the one demonizing welfare.

 

[Rekkapryde]

I wouldn't take a "salary" either. Just give me stocks so I can eat off lightly taxed capital gains. These rich nikkaz make me sick with that cornball cacs.

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

Welfare= living off my tax dollars for free.

Investments = getting taxed less bc i invested wisely. U cant be serious

You don't seem to be upset at that corporate welfare though do you?

And living of your tax dollars for free? My dude, unless you're in that 100k or above club, the amount you pay in yearly taxes wouldn't pay a fast food workers salary. Your tax dollars only mean something because hundreds of millions of other people pay into the system and some of them think that Welfare is tax dollars well spent. You may call them entitlements and government handouts, but in the grand scheme of things, everybody has their hand out because they feel entitled to something; whether lax regulations, tax cuts, or food stamps.

 

[TheBigBopper]

Something being legal doesn't mean it's moral or principled. The problem is Mitt Romney is campaigning on protecting that status quo which allows him to pay a lower percentage of taxes than middle income Americans. If he was campaigning on doing the opposite then no one would complain. But with Mitt, it just comes off as a guy who wants to be President just for the sake of it and who will protect the interests of the wealthy (his own interests).

The fact of the matter is, in a fair system, middle class Americans should not be paying a higher tax rate than millionaires. If Tom Cruise, Jay-Z, Warren Buffet, etc., can see that bullshyt then I don't get why we should rally behind a guy that doesn't.

But I've seen you post before and I catch your steeze. At first I thought we had common ground (elite educational backgrounds and all that when schooling people on here), but you've admitted that you didn't grow up around people near the bottom, and that you're all about your own benefit. If that's the case, it makes it very iffy for any of us to think that you would endorse any philosophy that wasn't involved with making the most cash by any means possible and regardless of who you shyt on to do it.

Romney hasn't done anything illegal as far as we know, but he is the poster-child for everything that is wrong with the socioeconomic divides in our country, he is the perfect opposition for a time like this in our country's history.

Morality is subjective. As much as ethicists would like to believe contrary, the only morality that has any real authority or meaning is the law.

Also, I am completely about my self-interests and I believe others should be too. No one in life cares more about you than you. I also grew up in a working class household, and in all honesty, seeing first hand examples of how lazy, unmotivated, and not so bright people at the bottom of the rung generally are make me less sympathetic to their situation. If I was able to make it out of a lower middle class background, others should be as well.

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

If I was able to make it out of a working class environment, others should be as well.

Confirmation bias.

 

[TheBigBopper]

Oh yeah... because we wouldn't have Facebook, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, if it wasn't for the IPO right cmon daddy that ain't right and you know it.

Also, I won't "believe you" that if investments was taxed like income there would be less investing, the greatest investor of all time, Warren Buffet, totally refuted that notion, and tax rates we're MUCH higher for most of the history of the U.S., especially during periods of great economic boom and stability on Wall St.

Market liquidity is not a barometer of future success is this even a serious discussion? Just because you can buy and sell with relative ease doesn't mean you're not gonna get fukked. I'm sure the CDO market was very liquid until Sept 2008.

It is legal but its embarrassing, sometimes IS illegal, and should be illegal in general. After the taxpayers bail you out, you decide that from then on out all your money is going to be held in foreign nations where you will pay no taxes whatsoever.

1.) Of course they wouldn't be around. They wouldn't even have any working capital to grow if it weren't for their IPOs or a way for venture capitalists and founders to cash out. If they were around sans a system in which equity owners could quickly liquidate, these tech names wouldn't be anywhere near as large as they are with one.

2.) Warren Buffett is suffering from white guilt. Also, more tax loopholes existed during the era of 90% marginal tax rates, thereby lowering effective tax rates. We were also the world's leading exporter of high value goods at the time because Europe and Asia were destroyed after WWII. We would have been prosperous throughout the 1940s-70s even if effective tax rates were high.

3.) I mentioned the stock market's liquidity not as an argument for its future success, but as evidence that this isn't something that can be tightly controlled by 20 or so elite white men to screw over the proletariat. It's too large and dynamic for that. How can the entire market be rigged if it's so big and there are millions of players in the game? Setting aside your discretionary income and putting it into an index fund that will eventually reap returns at a <15% tax rate is easily attainable for the middle class as long as they don't buy mindless shyt like cars they can't afford and vacations to Disney Land.

 

[TheBigBopper]

Obama

What type entrepreneurial risk are you taking by investing in diversified portfoilios in the stock market and you keep 85% of the gains?

What is entrepreneurial about investing?

Yeah, lets just forget that putting capital at stake is the very definition of entrepreneurship

 

[TheBigBopper]

Confirmation bias.

How about you argue the points I laid out in my post instead of finding logical errors that don't exist?

 

[Liquid]

Is this the guy I hear is running against Obama?

 

[Rarely-Wrong Liggins]

How about you argue the points I laid out in my post instead of finding logical errors that don't exist?

It is confirmation bias. Just because you did it doesn't mean other people have the same combination of luck, circumstance, and resources as you had. The reasoning you put forth is almost infantile.

And you already admitted that you are out for self, which is fine. But why should I waste time arguing with someone who obviously doesn't value others, let alone their opinions?

I do have something to say about this however.....

the only morality that has any real authority or meaning is the law

That's not a fact, rather an opinion, so do not state it as such.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Yeah, lets just forget that putting capital at stake is the very definition of entrepreneurship

Putting capital at stake for a business venture is entrepreneurship.

Having enough money that you are well diversified enough where you can live off the interest and only pay tax on the sale of stock is NOT a RISK.

You have no argument bruh

 

[TheBigBopper]

That's not a fact, rather an opinion, so do not state it as such.

How is it not fact? If I have consensual sex with a sixteen year-old girl in North Carolina despite being 7 years older than her, I'm sure a lot of people would find it immoral, but their morality has no authority over my consequences because what I would be doing is legal. Arguing things from a moral standpoint is meaningless because morality is only subjective interpretation.